Not sure why I would expect any different, but it's still quite sickening. We'll certainly reap what we sow as humans.

Shock Report: Aborted and Miscarried Babies Were Incinerated and Used to Heat U.K. Hospitals

Thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated along with medical waste at U.K. hospitals, with some of the remains being used to help heat medical facilities, according to an investigative news program.

At least 15,500 babies were burned by health authorities or used to help generate power for at least two facilities, according to the Telegraph.

Addenbrooke’s Hospital, for instance, burned 797 babies under 13 weeks gestation at a “waste to energy” furnace, telling the mothers that the bodies had been “cremated,” the outlet reported (the hospital also made headlines in 2006 for admitting to burning deceased babies in a trash incinerator).

And Ipswitch Hospital incinerated 1,101 remains brought in from another health care facility during a two-year period from 2011 to 2013; these fetal remains were reportedly also used to generate energy for the facility.

Absolutely sickening.

WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.

First off, I am all but 100% sure that it takes more energy to burn a human body than you get out of it. So it is factually inaccurate to say that they were used to heat anything. Crematories are energy consumers and not energy producers. All the hospitals did and it is not unreasonable is that they built one facility to both heat the building and incinerate their medical waste. So it boils down to the same question as always, is an aborted fetus killing a baby or is it just removing unwanted human tissue? All unwanted human tissue is just medical waste and no one would be offended by the burning of tumors and other human tissue removed.

What do you think they do with an appendix after an appendicitis?

If you think of an unborn baby as no different than a gangrenous appendix, then why on earth would you not send it to the incinerator and eliminate the risk of spreading disease?

If you think of an unborn baby as no different than a newborn baby, you don't kill them.

I saw that. It's perfectly logical if you believe in abortion. If not, it's not really what happens to the body, but the killing of that human that is really offensive.

Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell

And I don't think it's too much of a stretch to being Godwin into this by saying that the Nazis saw it no differently- Jews weren't humans, so why not make soap and lampshades out of them? Waste not, want not, I presume they believed.

WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.

Could you use the carcasses of the animals that you trap to heat your house? Nope. It would take more heat to incinerate them than you would get out. It's the energy engineer in me. This is not an energy source. This is a medical waste incineration system, which is something the health physicist in me has also studied. It was just cheaper to create one incinerator than two separate systems. As a result, their gas bill goes up and not down because they are incinerating the children in it and not just heating the facilities.

You know my views on killing unborn babies are as strong as at least 90% or more of the population, which puts me pretty far to the right on the issue. However, I don't want to act like the left and make false statements.

They are not burning the unborn babies for heat. They are just burning them with the garbage which is what they think they are.

Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell

Although, I just read the article. I could be wrong. I was thinking of actually cremating the bodies, bones and all, but there is a possibility that they are just driving off the water and burning the organic material which may be a net positive on energy much like a municipal or hazardous waste incinerator. I'm still not sure, but the primary purpose is clearly waste incineration and the energy is a secondary source of income combined with the waste disposal to make the project economical. They don't pay for the waste like they do an energy source.

Either way. They are treating the unborn babies like garbage and not like a biomass fuel.

Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell

My question here is what would you expect them to do with the bodies? They are not going to cremate them and put them in an Urn. They are not going to give them a proper burial or place them in a tomb of any kind.

While I am against abortion in general, and the entire lifestyle it fosters. Once the fetus is removed from the mother and is dead, they really have no choice to make. I would bet that medical law calls it out as biological waste and requires the fetus to be burned in this or a similar matter.

I find it repugnant, but less repugnant than killing the child in the first place.

Last edited by ScaupHunter on Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen